Film or Digital

First pagePrevious pageof 2
Displaying 21 to 36 of 36 matches.
graemenicholson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Dec 28, 2012 2:23AM
Posted By ClarkandCompany:
Go on then pick  my film images.


On Christmas Eve I decided to accept this challenge, adopting a rigorous scientific approach, which meant I would write down the file AND page numbers from your portfolio and select three images within a time period of 10 minutes. After all, it shouldn't take long. To assist me I chose to play music to facilitate concentration, The Stooges.


Not surprisingly I began on the last page, number 44, and soon realised this was not as easy as I had thought, so I had to frequently pause for refreshments. Time passed until I was interrupted by the ringing of my door bell. A young lady who lives on the ground floor (I live on the third) was complaining about The Noise, said the whole house was vibrating. I am not kidding and it's not the first time either, so I mumbled apologies, said something about The Celebration of Life, and gave up.


Today I found my Research Documents, and here are my findings :-





Page 44





Page 1





Page 5 - I think, it's hard to read the writing.


Anyway it was lots of fun, and if I guessed correctly do I win a prize?
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:16AM

Nice try.


I think you should have turned the music up louder, The Stooges are a bit before my time.....but keep trying. Wrong on all three. Detention.


Here's a clue, sort my 'port by age then go to last page i.e the oldest pics are go from there.
gipi23
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:58AM
I think it really depends...do you think a good DSLR could capture the tonal range of the following, just 35 mm, shot?
I think there is a market for film, but to be good at it you have to be just great at it, and the bottle neck is much much much tighter than that of digital. For stock, not efficient, not 'worthy', but there is a world out there, outside istock, innit?

(Edited on 2012-12-28 07:02:29 by gipi23)
RyersonClark
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:21AM
Of course there is a world outside of stock, but the question was for stock.  If people want to play with film I encourage them to do what pleases them.
graemenicholson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:34AM
Posted By ClarkandCompany:

Nice try.


I think you should have turned the music up louder, The Stooges are a bit before my time.....but keep trying. Wrong on all three. Detention.


Here's a clue, sort my 'port by age then go to last page i.e the oldest pics are go from there.

Oh well, like I said it was fun, and also surprising. I use Silverfast, which has a feature called Negafix - over 120 CN profiles - so I felt confident. 'Keep trying', for sure.
lcodacci
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:42AM

don't know if it's my magic scanner Reflecta, but i found this pic rich of tonal range and latitudine.


do you guys think digital can reach this level of image file_thumbview_approve perception?
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:56AM
^yes, obviously. We are looking at a digital image. The tonal range etc we see is limited by the monitor. A skilled digital capture on a good digital camera could capture all this and more.

I think that your question is irrelevant for most published photography, which is nowadays either output on a digital device (e.g monitor), or passes through various digital stages before being printed. Skilled processing can replicate the "look" of various film types etc. I think it would be quite exceptional to say " this image could only have been captured on film".
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:01AM
^ Agreed. I don't see anything there that would pose any great challenge for anyone shooting the same scene on a decent DSLR. As I've said before, I think there is a difference in how images shot on film can look when printed on light sensitive paper, but as soon as you start scanning or digitising in some way, I just don't see any difference, other than inherent noise / grain differences.
lfreytag
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:05PM
For outdoor photography, use of color negative film in medium format can produce excellent results, very suitable for stock shots, due to the extreme exposure latitude, excellent color reproduction, high megapixel availablity, and the ability to shoot very quickly in the field. To the original poster, unfortunately, as per usual, one will receive a lot of negative energy along with very poorly informed answers when posting a worthy question such as yours. I agree with you about digital camera image quality issues, and a lot of other people do as well; it is just a fact that many photographers will decry methods other than the ones they have settled on, and most photographers posting here are using digital cameras. However, if you are going to the trouble to shoot film then you should use medium format film because it costs about the same as 35 but you get a whole lot more for your trouble. I would use a low ISO film and a really good scanner, one that you have REALLY learned how to use as setting up for the scan correctly is the most important step after pressing the shutter.
graemenicholson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:01AM

I agree mostly with lfreytag, especially regarding medium format negative: that's a really satisfying way to work. 35mm is tricky and you will need a high end scanner, but you probably know that already. The disadvantge of analog is cost, speed (processing time) and risk, meaning you will need a trusted laboratory. That being said I am amazed at the contrast range of a 16 bit raw file compared to a Dia. - critical studio set-ups sometimes have a tolerance range of a 1/3 of a stop: when I think of the money I spent on Polaroids/paranoids, and somtimes cilp tests, and I had to bracket anyway! OK, I'm no Irving Penn but, whew! what a run-around.


As for scanning expertise, do as little as possible - no sharpening, minor levels adjustments and let PS take care of the rest. The problems are with negatives, and that is why I use Silverfast, which has profiles for practically every film, which is a very good starting point - you have to play around a bit. But then all of that is of course only my opinion.


There CAN BE a difference between a digital file and a scanned digital file, but, er, I think the less I say about that the better.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:32AM
I don't think anyone is decrying the quality you can get with film, especially if you are going to start off in medium format. The question has been, do you really think it is worth the extra bother, especially when you are going to end up in digital anyway (via a very expensive scanner)?

By using film you add both time and money to the production process. Do buyers notice enough of a difference in quality to prefer scanned film over straight digital? (Remembering that, to compare like with like, you might use a digital back on a Hasselblad as a starting point. ...Actually, looking at the cost of digital backs for Hasselblads, you might be on to something!)
lagereek
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:29AM
/
/Yes you would BUT you will still have to scan them and that will have to be a drumscanning, the end result will be no better then say from a MII or a Nikon D3X.


I have drumscaned for years and years from 8x10, 4x5, MF and small format and believe me, theres no differance. Going to a lab is no answer, becomes too expensive.


Right now I have a Giant Imacon Drumscanner standing in my studio, just gathering dust, worth a fortune. If I sold it? I wouldnt even get the price of a lans.


Waist of time. Go for the best of digital cams, more important then anything. Learn your PP to 100%  and then they wont look so plasticky at all.


I mean you can have the best cams in the world! unless your PP is spot on and I mean spot on, that cam isnt better then a first generation P/S. well you know what I mean.

I myself have had the same dilema as you, pissed off with digital, etc but in the end I gave up. Isnt worth it. Post-processing is what its all about.


(Edited on 2013-02-15 04:33:59 by lagereek)

(Edited on 2013-02-15 04:36:50 by lagereek)
graemenicholson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:23PM

@ lagereek


I really, really don't want to admit that you are right but, er, yes drum scanners are a pain and, just out of interest, I know two agencies who, for assignment work, are willing to pay the extra cost for analog because they are sick and tired of digital plasicky images but, like I said, I really, really don't want to admit that you are right. Please don't ask why coz it's kinda personal.
lagereek
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:12PM




 



Posted By graemenicholson:

 

I really, really don't want to admit that you are right but, er, yes drum scanners are a pain and, just out of interest, I know two agencies who, for assignment work, are willing to pay the extra cost for analog because they are sick and tired of digital plasicky images but, like I said, I really, really don't want to admit that you are right. Please don't ask why coz it's kinda personal.



Graem!  dont worry mate. I been up that road myself for years, driving myself mad trying to opt the quality of an already top quality drumscanner. As I said earlier, I gave up. However I found the answer and its in the in-camera settings and PP. I have actually shot a Hasselblad and a Leica S, digital, side by side for optimal quality and compared the analogue against the digital file ( scanning) involved and actually used identical PP and finally arriving to the same end result.


 The secret lies entirely in the in-camera settings followed by PP. trust me on this one, I hated to admit it myself, it almost became an obsession with me. However lets not forget, we are uploading jpgs here and this sort of quality can easily become an overkill. Such things as noise-red, sharpening, etc, are just out! should all be at zero. contrast must be lowered in scanning and in digital capture.

(Edited on 2013-02-15 16:17:45 by lagereek)
graemenicholson
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:38PM

@ lagereek


At the moment I am going through my analog archive which is uncomfortable, brings back so many memories, and I start hankering for 'the good 'ole days' when I see some Ektachrome VS or I scan Color Negative which, in my opinion, has really individual color. And then I think,'cmon, this is just nostalgia, like remembering the late 1960s early 1970s. Things were great then! (well, they were, for some).


My PS skills are not good enough to reproduce the same colors from a digital file as from, say, a print from a Reala CS or Agfa Optima film, depending on the paper and other variables of course.


Thanks for your reply and, just supposing you are right, which I will never admit, but just supposing, then I should try to look on the positive side of things, meaning it will be a challenge for me to improve my PS skills.


Have a great week-end, and a 'stiff Lagavuin girly' is on me - (hope I got that right).
lagereek
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:00AM
Posted By graemenicholson:

@ lagereek


At the moment I am going through my analog archive which is uncomfortable, brings back so many memories, and I start hankering for 'the good 'ole days' when I see some Ektachrome VS or I scan Color Negative which, in my opinion, has really individual color. And then I think,'cmon, this is just nostalgia, like remembering the late 1960s early 1970s. Things were great then! (well, they were, for some).


My PS skills are not good enough to reproduce the same colors from a digital file as from, say, a print from a Reala CS or Agfa Optima film, depending on the paper and other variables of course.


Thanks for your reply and, just supposing you are right, which I will never admit, but just supposing, then I should try to look on the positive side of things, meaning it will be a challenge for me to improve my PS skills.


Have a great week-end, and a 'stiff Lagavuin girly' is on me - (hope I got that right).


Cheers!  a good weekend and a toast to you too!  Lagavulin, sounds great to me!


 


PS/ not saying I got much more experience then you but should you ever get stuck in scanning, etc. you can always PM me. Two brains works better then  one.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 2
Displaying 21 to 36 of 36 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)